Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A judgment with the same content as the cognitive element of a blaming emotion could itself constitute an instance of blame.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If the force of blame is grounded in the cognitive elements of the emotion, then what does the work of constituting blame is the cognitive content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The cognitive element can be present even if the blamer is not emotionally exercised.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Emotions are merely concomitant with blame rather than constitutive of it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Judgments carry their own normative force when they represent violations of moral demands we hold the agent to, as Scanlon's buck-passing account of value demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A judgment that someone is blameworthy just is a judgment that they have failed a standard we hold them to, which constitutively modifies our practical relations with them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This modification of practical relations—not emotional arousal—is what distinguishes blame from mere moral assessment, making the judgment itself sufficient for blame.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strawson's reactive attitudes are grounded in the demand for goodwill, meaning the cognitive recognition of ill will is what triggers the reactive stance, not the emotion independently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the cognitive content tracks the morally relevant feature—the agent's ill will or indifference—then the judgment replicates the action-guiding and relational work the emotion performs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Emotional concomitants are epiphenomenal to blame's constitutive function when the judgment alone sustains the relevant change in the blamer's normative expectations of the agent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.